Hi Ryan, Rob, Marc, Oliver, Josephine, and all,
Here is my ethereal online archive:
http://deepyoung.org
It requires me to be an ongoing webmaster, because the links are
constantly breaking, since most are out on the network and not on my
server. One day I will tire of maintaining it, and it will
disappear. It's not a meta-narrative like a wiki, in that I'm the
only one who can modify it. But it is a personal narrative --
filter, recontextualization, and reappropriation of text as
autobiography.
A DJ's record collection is more than a static archive; it is a
projection of his personality, since it represent what he values and
what he doesn't. A DJs records are in a constant state of flux. He
is always acquiring new wax and discarding old wax, since his set is
meant to portray what he is into on any given gig night. He's not
maintaining his record collection for posterity or canonicity. It's
source material that he perpetually recontextualizes as a form of
personal artistic expression.
Might an art critic's ongoing dialogue with contemporary art pieces
serve the same autobiographical function (gonzo art crit)?:
http://lab404.com/dreams/library.html#text
Lester Bangs is the original gonzo art crit:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679720456/
Might a curator's ongoing dialogue with contemporary art serve the
same autobiographical function (as Rob suggests, gonzo taxonomy as
curation). Anne-Marie Schleiner calls it "filter feeding":
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html
Marc Garrett is ever lobbying for the
outsider/egalitarian/para-institutional aspects of this curatorial
approach.
I'm no great fan of relativism, but for better or worse (perhaps
worse), Barthes & co. freed the literary critic from the strictures
of the author's intention. It seemed a useful approach at the time.
I'm a big proponent of working with the medium rather than against
it. I'm thinking specifically of net art here, which is the
red-headed step-child of digital art, and presents its own unique set
of curatorial problems. Or are they problems? Maybe they just
require a much more fluid curatorial approach. Curator as club DJ
rather than library scientist, taxonomist, or value arbiter. Where
net art is concerned, such an approach seems to wrestle less against
what the network "wants" to do. It "agrees" with the network more
(if I may be allowed to anthropomorphize the network).
What are the implications of this increasingly
subjective/real-time/ephemeral approach to curation/preservation?
What are its commonalities with current modes of new media curation?
What are its commonalities with current modes of old media curation?
What are its commonalities with current modes of criticism? What are
its commonalities with current modes of artmaking
(remix/palimpsest/open source/intellectual property)? What are its
commonalities with pop culture? How might such an approach still
preserve a canon? How might contemporary academic pedagogy and
research morph to accomodate such a curatorial approach? Need
academia, museums, and galleries adopt such a curatorial approach at
all? How will such a curatorial approach affect the "art market"
(how does remix culture affect the "music industry?") Will the
digital artist be happy about such an approach (is the source
musician happy about remix culture, is the author happy about
deconstruction)? Will such an approach be more fun? For whom will
it be more fun? Whom will it render less relevant?
peace,
curt
home: http://lab404.com
garden: http://playdamage.org
archive: http://deepyoung.org
bubblegum: http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/
school: http://mmas.unca.edu
At 5:29 PM -0800 2/21/05, ryan griffis wrote:
>these arguments about taxonomies and conservation aren't new, of
>course, but the ramifications of implementing any particular program
>certainly seem larger/broader. when meta data rules become accepted for
>use by a global network (designed by a rather small set of people for a
>global population), that's a decision with really far-reaching effects,
>spatially and temporally speaking.
>inserting the archivist into the narrative is an interesting concept
>(as Rob suggests), and one that implies a degree of transparency, but
>still leaves many questions.
>i'm wondering what people make of the distinction between an archival
>(not in the media-specific "acid-free" sense) process and one of
>conservation. As Sandra discussed, from the perspective of institutions
>with particular agendas, i would think that there is a huge difference
>between the two, both technically and politically. An archive, for
>example can be a process aimed at accessibility and a non-exclusive
>addition to histories (Wikipedia, for example). Conservation (or
>preservation - is there a difference in the language here?), seems to
>have a process of historical negation through which some ideas are made
>concrete aesthetically and become immune to revision, while others are
>made invisible.
>Archives can be "living," while conservation seems related to death and
>mummification.
>but, perhaps this is a completely false dichotomy...
>best,
>ryan
--
|